Search form

Why Do Most Vegetarians Go Back To Eating Meat?

I am interviewing Staci Giani who is forty-one but looks ten years younger. Raised in the Connecticut suburbs, she now lives with her partner Gregory in a self-sustaining eco-community deep in the mountains twenty minutes north of Old Fort, North Carolina. Staci radiates strength, and when she talks about food, she gets excited and seems to glow. She is Italian-American, attractive, and you want to smile when you talk to her. She tells me that she and Gregory built their own house, even cutting the timber and milling the logs. I think to myself, "This woman could kick my ass."

Staci wasn't always so fit. In her early 30's, Staci's health started going downhill. After twelve years of strict vegetarianism, she began to suffer from anemia and chronic fatigue syndrome, and she experienced stomach pains for two hours after every meal. "I was completely debilitated," she tells me. "Then I changed the way I ate."

"Tell me about your diet now. What did you have for breakfast today?" I ask.

"A half pint of raw beef liver," she says.

* * *

Ok....Staci is a bit extreme in her carnivory -- these days she prefers her meat raw, and she eats a lot of it. But the transformation from hard-core vegetarian to meat-eater that Staci illustrates is surprisingly common. Indeed, according to a 2005 survey by CBS News, three times as many American adults admit to being "ex-vegetarians" than describe themselves as current vegetarians. This suggests that roughly 75% of people who quit eating meat eventually change their minds and return to a diet that includes animal flesh. It seems that for most people, vegetarianism is a phase rather than a permanent change in lifestyle. Why?

Perhaps because I was raised a Southern Baptist, I have always been fascinated by backsliders, so I decided to find out why so many vegetarians eventually give up their all-plant diet. To study the motivations of ex-veggies, Morgan Childers and I set up a website that included a survey related to eating.Then we put out a call for ex-vegetarians through Internet sites devoted to topics like health, nutrition, and the treatment of animals.

Over the next week or so, seventy-seven former vegetarians took our survey. As is true of vegetarians generally, the majority of the participants were women. Their average age was 28, and on average, they had been vegetarian for nine years before for reverting back to eating animals. We asked the participants to indicate the primary reasons they quit eating meat in the first place and why they subsequently decided to give up their all-plant diet. They also had the opportunity to comment at length on the reasons for the changes they had made in their eating habits.

Why Did They Stop Eating Meat In The First Place?

As other researchers have reported about vegetarians, our participants originally quit meat for a variety of reasons. The most common reasons in our study were ethical concerns about the treatment of animals (57%), followed by health and environmental reasons (15% each). Fewer people stopped eating meat because they did not like the taste of animal flesh or because of social pressure from friends, spouses, etc.

Why The Ex-Veggies Resumed Eating Animals

Reasons For Resuming Meat-Eating

The reasons that the ex-vegetarians gave for reverting to omnivory fell into five categories.

Declining Health. In his book The Face on Your Plate: The Truth About Food, Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson extols the health benefits of an all plant diet. He writes, "Now at 68, several years a vegan, I find I have never been healthier. I weigh less than I did at thirty; I am stronger than when I was forty; I have fewer colds or minor illnesses than at fifty." While Masson may have thrived on a meatless diet, this is not always the case with vegetarians. In fact, thirty-five percent of our participants indicated that declining health was the main reason they reverted back to eating flesh. For example, one wrote, "I was very weak and sickly. I felt horrible even though I ate a good variety of foods like PETA said to." Another wrote, "My doctor recommended that I eat some form of meat as I was not getting any better. I thought it would be hypocritical of me to just eat chicken and fish as they are just as much and animal as a cow or pig. So I went from no meat to all meat." The most succinct response was by a man who wrote, "I will take a dead cow over anemia any time."

Hassles and Social Stigmas. About a quarter of our ex-veggies described the hassles they said were associated with strict vegetarianism. They complained that it was difficult to find high quality organic vegetables in their local supermarkets at a reasonable price. Others began to resent the time it took to prepare meatless dishes, and some said they simply grew tired of the lifestyle.

A related reason for returning to meat consumption, one mentioned by 15% of our subjects, was that vegetarianism was taking a toll on their social life. The degree that vegetarianism and particularly moral veganism can screw up your day to day existence was nicely summed up in a New York Times op ed by the philosopher Gary Steiner titled, appropriately, "Animal, Vegetable, Miserable." In describing his personal experience with giving up the consumption of animal products, he wrote "What were once the most straightforward activities become a constant ordeal."

Irresistible Urges. About one in five of our participants had developed an irresistible urge to taste cooked flesh once more. This occurred even among some long-term vegetarians. Participants talked about their protein cravings or how the smell of sizzling bacon would drive them crazy. One, for example, said "I just felt hungry all the time and that hunger would not be satisfied unless I ate meat." Another described his return to meat in mathmatical terms: Starving college student + First night back home with the folks + Fifty or so blazin' buffalo wings waiting in the kitchen = Surrender.

Shifts in Moral Thinking. About half of the respondents originally gave up meat for ethical reasons. Yet only two of our ex-vegetarians said changes in their views of the morality of killing animals motivated their decision to resume meat consumption. In fact, most of the former vegetarians were still concerned with animal protection and the ethical issues associated with eating animals. The participants' original reason for giving up meat did affect their level present meat consumption. Individuals who had given up eating meat primarily for social reasons indicated that they ate meat much more frequently than did people who originally became vegetarian for ethical or environmental reasons.*

The Bottom Line

For most people, the draw of meat is powerful -- often irresistible. This is not a justification for slaughtering creatures because they happen to taste good. Philosophers correctly warn against committing "the naturalistic fallacy" - assuming that because a behavior is "natural," it is also ethical. In fact, I believe the case against eating other creatures is strong on moral, environmental, and health grounds. Why then do even most vegetarians eventually cave to the desire to eat animal flesh? Is meat-eating in our genes? I will take this question up in a future PT blog. Stay tuned.

Not one mention of common developmental stages that would account for an acetic lifestyle change that would commonly be seen in post-adolesence, particularly in young college students or other young people seeking to gain further mastery of self and their environment? Establishing the vegetarian identity is one way to set oneself apart as an "individual" when seeking autonomy from parental and societal pressure. It would seem understandable that a large percentage of these people eventually return to a more pragmatic approach to diet.

Our fellow creatures on this earth have an astounding level of genetic similarity to us. Those similarities are especially evident in the ways animals perceive the world. All animals, including people can see, hear, taste, smell, and feel. Obviously all animals can feel physical pain. Can they also feel emotional or psychological pain? Can they feel elation? Can they feel fear, threat, even anger? Can they feel bonded to other animals? People who have spent much time around pets or farm animals, or have closely observed animals in the wild know the answer to these questions is yes.

The non-humans do have two very significant disadvantages with regard to their ongoing use as food sources for humans. First, they generally cannot communicate with humans in ways that most humans understand. Second, most of the ones raised to become food are tucked away in deplorable factory farm prisons where their lives of misery are not witnessed by the people who will indulge in the taste and smell of their dead and slightly burnt carcasses.

For these reasons I see meat eaters as genocidal cannibals who enjoy chewing on necrotic muscle tissue of their fellow creatures. The ethical ramifications of that are enormous.

You know, I wonder what percentage of vegetarians go back to eating meat out of disgust for the sickeningly smug attitude displayed by such a large percent of vegetarians.

@OP - You don't like the way certain meats are farmed? Don't buy those meats. I eat loads of fish because:

1: I'd prefer not to get a severe B12 deficiency (even B12 pills are made from fish).
2: Because screw salmon. You want to call it unethical? Fine but the argument goes in reverse. If I can't say eating meat is ethical because it's natural, vegetarians don't get to call eating meat unnatural just because it may or may not be unethical.

Ethical or not, the fact humans require B12 (as well as certain other nutrients) in their diet is proof that meat consumption is natural. Nature doesn't give a rat's fart about what is ethical, only what works. Eating loads of fish is so obviously both natural and healthy that ethics can piss off.

Just because something is ethical (or not) doesn't make it the right (or wrong) choice. Other modes of decision making exist. Try expanding your horizons and spend less time being condescending to the rest of us.

"For these reasons I see meat eaters as genocidal cannibals who enjoy chewing on necrotic muscle tissue of their fellow creatures. The ethical ramifications of that are enormous."
However in nature animals generally eat animals.
The end of story.

Yes there are similarities but not enough to making eating them unethical. Dogs are probably the most "emotionally intelligent," but as Westerners don't generally eat dogs, that isn't much of a point.
No one is advocating cruelty in butchering livestock and it can be done in a respectful manner. A life is being taken, but it is being taken for a greater good, namely the sustenance of a higher mammal.
As to your last point, the ethical ramifications are enormous if you can't make the distinction between Man who can reason and build things like space shuttles and a cow that can only eat, stare and chew.
All that lives feeds on death; plant life, animal life, or insect life. There is a great chain of being at work here. No one is advocating "genocide" either...where would the next hamburger come from if you wiped out ALL the cows?
Human rights are called that because as a rule only humans recognize them.
Finally, not all nutrients are the same. The proteins in meat are more complete and better absorbed than the purely plant stuff. On a similar note, iron is far better absorbed by the body if the Spinach (iron) you eat is ingested *with* dairy.
The difference with the Vegan ideology is that it extends "human rights" to animals that don't give a shit. Sympathy is one thing; but this is sentimentality run amuck!

I am sorry I missed your survey, but if you would like more data for research... or could you possibly tell me why I end up being vegetarian? I have my suspicions as to why but it would be nice if someone could throw out some more theories.

I dislike the taste or smell of meat, raw or cooked. But if i forgo it for extended periods of time I crave it again. Specifically beef and bacon or.... the dreaded... RIBS.
I feel like I am on a constant roller coaster of Vegetarian non/ex-vegetarian and I do not understand why.

It usually runs something like this... on a typical day of a typical week while I am non-vege. I eat approx. 1 serving of meat which is usually chicken or turkey. And by serving size I mean a hunk the size of a card deck or smaller. The rest of my diet is mostly carbs from vegetables and grains along with large amounts of fruits, non starchy veggies, and nuts.

And then there is the transition period, where meat starts to taste like saw dust and just thinking of meat makes my stomach feel queasy. Sometimes these transition periods will turn up randomly and other times there are defining moments that cause this. Like a science class that involves seeing photos or videos from surgeries or actual in class dissection "participation" (If you call cowering in the corner, non-verbally begging the teacher for mercy as you try not to vomit every time the 'specimen' oozes blood. oh,and trying not to have a panic attack.) or someone shoving raw meat, quite literally, in my face. I have never seen a hormonal connection with these, though most of them happen at random but seem to also follow a consistent pattern even when my life or hormones are not.

Then begins the I am not eating meat phase. I end up eating alot of peanut butter, nuts, rice and yogurt, and a few other combinations of food that supposedly end up making a complete protein if consumed in the same meal. The only problem is I am extremely picky, and have a limited spectrum of food that i do like. I either eventually get bored of peanut butter and force myself eating meat again or I suddenly begin to crave meat.

And the cycle seems to repeat endlessly. I understand when I have "traumatic" experiences with blood or raw meat why I suddenly lose interest in it, what confuses me is why it happens the rest of the time.

Ps. I do not have an eating disorder. I only consider myself picky becuase that is what I have been told I am.

Your story if fascinating. Some researchers have found that meat cravings and repulsions fluctuate in pregnant women. However, in one study, the desire for meat was not related to the menstrual cycle (I thought it might be).

Some of our participants told us they began to crave meat when they became anemic. Otherwise, your case seem pretty unique.

By they way, bacon is the downfall of many vegetarians....and I agree with you about ribs!

I'm proud to say I haven't eaten meat since 1993, the year I went to college and became free from my meat eating parents. I never liked meat and do not get why people enjoy it. When I was a child, I saw a package of chicken on our kitchen countertop. I asked my mother what the red liquid was around the meat and she said they were just "juices." I knew better and immediately made the connection that we were about to eat an animals body parts. That was the end for me. I strongly believe meat is murder and am happy to have survived past any trends. I never did it for trendy reasons. Go Veg!!

Kristen,
I have interviewed quite a number of vegetarians and many of them, like you, have never really liked the taste of meat or always found it disgusting. In fact, my daughter Katie is in this category. I suspect that people who are genetically predisposed to dislike the taste of flesh find it easier to become vegetarian and stay meatless. I discuss this in more detail in my book and also plan to write a couple of more posts on this topic.

Kristen,
A friend also mentioned the presumed connection between vegetarianism and blood type. When I did a Google search, I found all kinds of "references" to this. However, when I looked at the scientific literture (PubMed, etc,) I did not find a single reputable study linking blood type and meat-eating or vegetarianism. As I discuss in my book, there does seem to be a genetic basis for individual differences the attraction to the taste of meat, but I can find no evidence that it is linked to blood types.

I plan to discuss this in a later PT blog. Thanks for the comment!
Hal

Well, first I'll just mention that my blood type is O. According to the blood type diet people that means I need to eat a lot of meat. Right. Reading that convinced my that diet was based on nothing, and at the time I ate meat. I just found it unpleasant and didn't eat very much. Few things have made me as happy as the day I decided I was done attempting to have meat in my diet. I'd only kept it up that long due to pressure from family. I've only noticed an improvement in health.
However, I found this article interesting because I have wondered why people would go back to eating meat (I know most people like it, but still). One of my friends and her entire family have just jumped into the meat eating world feet first, apparently due to health problems. I'm really curious about exactly what they were eating before (as vegans), but they did notice a decline in health. Maybe it all ties in with whether you feel deprived or not. :-)

I liked the taste of meat just fine (although "taste of meat" is somewhat of a misnomer, as most of the taste of meat dishes, like veggie dishes, comes from spices) when I ate it, and I know a great many vegans who were the same. And not once have I craved meat, dairy, or other animal products since the day I went vegan in 1997. What's important is to have an ethical commitment to the idea that since we don't need animal products for any reason, animals have the right to not be treated as humans' property, as our inferiors. There is NOTHING that can lead someone who holds this as an ethical principle to go back to eating meat.

I find it humorous when people use this kind of thinking to justify being a vegan.

I hate to break it to you, but contemporary industrial society needs animal by-products. Even if you NEVER eat another piece of meat for the rest of your life, an animal will have died to provide you with a cell phone, car, home, etc, ect. Most people don't undrestand that modern industrial machinery must use animal byproducts that come from slaughter houses. Without the by products all vegatable food production and other necessities of modern society would grind to a halt.

You don't need to believe me, its a fact.

There is no going back and being a vegan won't save ANY animals in your lifetime, unless we all become hunters and gathers again.

I find it humorous when people think that being vegan is about being 100% pure and don't understand that people actually do think this stuff through.

I hate to break it to you, but veganism is not about that. It's impossible to live a life without killing a single animal. But it's a huge difference caring and trying not to compared to not caring at all. You will ofcourse kill fewer animals because you don't eat them, don't take their milk (getting killed in the end), not using their skin and fur in clothes or other products etc etc. You learn more as you go and can change your consumption to becoming more animal friendly and environmental friendly. You alone can't change a whole society, but many people can make it shift without society would grind to a halt.

You don't need to believe me, it's a fact.

There is no going back and being a vegan WILL save animal lifes and the environment in your lifetime, unless we all become meat eaters and don't even care.

BTW, I am an applied farmer, cook, freegan etc, environmentalist of sorts working in the collective sector for people in my community.

I find it humorous when people think that being vegan is about being 100% pure and don't understand that people actually do think this stuff through.

I hate to break it to you, but veganism is not about that. It's impossible to live a life without killing a single animal. But it's a huge difference caring and trying not to compared to not caring at all. You will ofcourse kill fewer animals because you don't eat them, don't take their milk (getting killed in the end), not using their skin and fur in clothes or other products etc etc. You learn more as you go and can change your consumption to becoming more animal friendly and environmental friendly. You alone can't change a whole society, but many people can make it shift without society would grind to a halt.

You don't need to believe me, it's a fact.

There is no going back and being a vegan WILL save animal lifes and the environment in your lifetime, unless we all become meat eaters and don't even care.

BTW, I am an applied farmer, cook, freegan etc, environmentalist of sorts working in the collective sector for people in my community.

Do you mean you grew up on a subsistance or commercial farm and now practice such skills on an individual scale, in order to save some cows that have already been slaughtered, processed and shipped? I hope you don't mean "growing vegatables" in your yard? My grandpareants had a REAL FARM that I worked on during school vacations as a child. Sure, I haven't had the "full experience" of running a commercial farm, but I also have more perspective then some who grows tomatoes in thier yard with stuff they bought from Home Depot. I wouldn't go back to doing that kind of work unless we went in a dark age and I was forced.

You and I just have a very different perspective on how small the impact of a few well meaing people can actually have in our current society. Believe whatever you want but the modern bourgeoisie would still produce and process the SAME amount of cattle in the USA, even if it wasn't consumed as food by the masses. Food production is just as important to the bourgeoisie as weapons are. Meat is a huge part of that equation and no vote or boycott will ever make it go away or be reduced. Like I said your vision would require a second "dark age".

BTW, still speaking as an appliied anthropologist, who in retrospect of their earlier comment, realizes that you would be shocked and appalled at the kind of projects people like me are paid to work on; who's result most certainly undermine any miniscule grass roots efforts you can muster in a lifetime.

Ever heard the term "proprietary white paper"? You won't find this work online or even in subscription fee based academic journals that univerisites use. My guess is you've never known anyone thats worked at places like RAND, NASA or JPL. There's plenty of research going on that YOU WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO SEE OR READ and your taxes paid for it. Which in my opinion, should entitle every citizen to get access to that goverment paid research. However let me point out that Corporation pay for the reasearch I do and unlike government funded research the findings will always belong to them, NOT YOU OR ME, EVER. Frankly you're lucky folks like myself sometimes step foward and mention things you should be aware of which are going on in the privatey funded realms of cultural research.

I say this with all due respect, but you have any idea what veganism actually is? Have you ever been friends with one, read any works by us? It would seem you have not. Would you suggest that i never step outside lest i step on a microbe? or ant? never breathe again lest i inhale a bug?

Parable for you: bright-eyed little dude by the edge of the sea, throwing starfish back into the ocean. Cancer-ridden carnist walks over and asks what he is doing. Happy little boy states with a smile: "saving starfish". Angry old dude sputters: "you can never make a difference, you are wasting your time". The child with compassion in his soul quietly says "You can think that, but to that starfish i just returned to the sea, my actions meant the world to her".

Yes, I know what a vegan is. I have clients who pull the "vegan card" when I have to take them out to lunch to discuss projects. In contrast to Indian vegatarians (whom I work with and also attend these "client" meetings), the practice of american vegans is pointless. I have NO problem with vegatarians because they acknowledge the facts of how society "actually operates" and adjust accordingly.

Let me repeat, no animlas can be saved by a mass veganism movement. There is not enough good land to produce crops fit for "human consumption" in the whole world, for the world population. Vegans also like to forget that cows, pigs etc consume grains that humans cannot eat under any circumstances. They are in a way processing that inedible grain into a viable food prodcut fit for human consumption.

Maybe I would take vegans moreseriously if they were pro mass abortion and took vows to never reproduce. But they don't. So no vegan with thier equally consuming offspring WILL EVER consume less than I do as a non-reproducer, regardless of the amount of meat and animal by-prodcust I consume. I am mathmatically more green and earth friendly than any reproducing vegan ever could be. To say otherwise is simple delusion.

Still speaking as an applied anthropologist working in the private sector. Sometime you have to see things at the 50,000 foot level to truly understand reality and ones place within it.

Congrats on not reproducing. Excellent. If we all follow your lead, the human population problem will be resolved in rather short order. Take your superior value system and go sell it in India and China. They seem in greatest need of your moral rectitude.

As for your views on animal vs plant consumption and their respective practicality and effects on the environment, you expose yourself as yet just another bloviator. You cite nothing scientific to back up your nonsense because there is nothing to cite.

Your views are right because they are your views. They are obvious to you and therefore should be obvious to everyone else. That is typical of how pretentious, ignorant, arrogant people operate.

Flesh consumers are callous and shallow self-righteous types. While some merely turn a blind eye to the horrific animal cruelty imposed through factory farming, for others it's a source of giddiness. They love the idea of endless misery of the "lower" animals. It makes the vile bastards feel superior.

are false, please do read up on what animals eat. A lot of it is corn and soy, perfectly fitted for human consumption, and they cut down the rainforest to grow, please just read something before you comment so blatantely braindead.

Naturalnews dot com just put up an article about organ damage being done to agricultural animals that are consuming GMO grains before their slaughter and processing. The article actually goes beyond the scope of what I was describing about grains not fit for human consumption. I was merely talking about grains that will break human teeth and cannot be fully or partially digested, but it seems this issue goes even further beyond that. These GMO grains which are feed to agricultural animals today, which are certainly NOT fit for human consumptions, have recently been found to cause organ damage as well. If you vegans think that agricultural animals are somehow not processing grain unfit for human consumption, PLEASE, save us all a headache and cease reproducing.

With some respect in that you are welcome to espouse an opinion, even if rudely expressed and not well supported, it is apparent that you are not at arm's length, let alone, the 50,000 foot level ... your specious arguments are, at best, unsupported ideas ... if you wish to prove anything (and this goes for both 'sides') show the data or use an ethical approach that is considered not just an opinion!

Without ANYTHING to back up your comments, your logic arguments just seem like an extension of your own bias, which makes you sound unscientific, despite your indication that you are actually trained to think scientifically. If you have anything SUBSTANTIVE to add, then do so, but the words you are wasting by expressing your opinion as fact are not going to make the words fact. That approach will not work for anyone, anthropologist or not.

You actually make it seem like applied anthropologists are an ignorant bunch of amateurs who are arrogant twits ... Anthropologists of any kind, if they have any reasonable training in the scientific method, are most certainly able to craft arguments based on reality and not conjecture! Stop giving them a bad name!

Have you ever heard the term "proprietary white paper"? You won't find this work online or even in subscription fee based academic journals that univerisites use. My guess is you've never known anyone thats worked at places like RAND, NASA or JPL. There's plenty of research going on that YOU WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO SEE OR READ and your taxes paid for it. Which in my opinion, should entitle every citizen to get access to that goverment paid research, but that is besides the point here. Let me point out that Corporations pay for the reasearch I do and unlike government funded research the findings will always belong to them; NOT YOU OR ME, EVER. Frankly you're lucky folks like myself sometimes step foward and mention small details of things you should be aware of, which are going on in the privatey funded realms of cultural research.

So, the industrialized world would grind to a halt without animal products? Once again we are handed the tablets from the mountain top with no examples, no citations, no footnotes, no data, just a good old fashioned self-seal of authority:

He states, "You don't need to believe me, its a fact."

The writer stakes a further claim to authority:

"BTW, I am an applied anthrooplogist working in the private sector."

Win any spelling bees lately?

Got examples? Leather couches and car seats do not count because there are very viable alternatives to those products. Name some indispensable animal product components that have no viable non-animal alternatives.

A lot of this commentary has to do with "humans eating animals" but that isn't really the entire issue here. Vegans are also against eating eggs and milk, which is basically saying that farm animals have no place in the human ecosystem.

Until "modern farming" was invented, these animals were parts of the system, and often treasured. In much of the world they still are. Heifer International has saved many lives in the world, by providing farm animals that eat the local vegetation and provide manure. Nowadays herds of goats are beginning to be used instead of herbicide and mowers to clear land, and around here cows are often used to keep acreage mowed.

When you keep farm animals, you can't keep all the males, because they kill each other. So the males are usually eaten. And, in a healthy ecosystem, there MUST be a predator.

The alternative system, our "modern agriculture" relies mainly on fossil fuels to provide fertilizer, pesticides, tilling, and shipping. The land used to grow all foods, kills huge swaths of land, and the production, burning, shipping etc. of fossil fuels is destructive also (esp. when, say it pollutes the Gulf of Mexico).

So yes, the problem of "animal products" is way bigger than what you wear on your feet. The fact you exist, kills animals. The best thing you can do as a human being, is to help figure out a way we can all exist in a harmonious ecosystem rather than a destructive one.

A vegan approach is not a anti-animalism, all of those individuals you mention could and would exist and thrive in a vegan future.

What would not exist is the capitalist exploitation of them, forced suffering for human interests and, especially, artificial death for the financial benefit of others.

Just as with the abolition of slavery, animal slaves would be free to live out the natural lifespans.

As usual, one highly distorting factor in this discussion is the effects of our corrupt global economic system which extracts greater profits by not paying the full costs and, where possible, passing on the full costs to others.

The bottomline is, we don't have a right to kill others for pleasure or self-gratification, and especially not for financial profit.

For example, the real cost of milk would include keeping the cattle alive until their natural lives ended increasing the costs perhaps 6, 10 or more times and limiting milk production to a natural amount which would increase the cost perhaps even 100 times.

You the consumer refuse to do so and so you shirk your moral responsibilities and cut the cost by increasing the animals suffering and killing them prematurely. You don't actually need dairy products to survive but out of greed, ignorance and self-gratification, you chose that animals must suffer and die far beyond what would even happen in a traditional hunter-gatherer society.

For meat, fish and eggs, the situation is even more exaggeratedly evil.

There are several products made from animals; however, your pessimism is rather sad. Just because we live in an industrial society does not mean we have to mass-produce other living beings and force them to live in the current cruel conditions, all in order to serve us. If you have empathy or morals, you can clearly see the barbaric nature of factory farms and industrial farming. It is a defeatist attitude to think that one person can't make a difference. If that were the case, then nothing would ever change. Each person votes with the products they buy and support.

I find it humorous that you're willing to avert your concern away from the suffering of millions of animals long enough to let us all know that we "need" their dead fat. Again, I am more evolved than you... I'm willing to have a discussion about alternative methods of de-greasing machinery. Are you? Working in the private sector you may be invested more in the monetary aspect of your "industry".

If you don't like the "industrial uses" of "animal by-products" for "ethical reasons", then you MUST stop using medicine and "convenience technology". The big 3 I can think of are computers, cars and cell phones. I am not taking a hypocritical position on this issue, but all of you in opposition of my statements, in fact, most certainly are. I can't believe that of none of you can see the hypocrisy in your "ethical reasons" for not "swallowing flesh", but will still consume flesh in the form of sending electronic pulses over the World Wide Web and taking medicine that your doctor prescribes. Same amount of comsumption here, per capita.

Ummm, again, your training as an apparent applied anthropologist has fallen woefully short ... as someone trained in the actual scientific method and reasonably up-to-date on green chemistry, I am able to say you are just plain wrong ... on de-greasers, and in other areas (just pick up any issue of Chemical and Engineering News, for example to see loads of examples of viable alternatives). We are not in the stone age for goodness sakes.

You "argument" assumes and all or nothing approach ... which is silly logic. Indeed, there are animal products in all sorts of things, but that does not mean alternatives do not exist or cannot be found. We humans tend to be resourceful creatures not unable to innovate.

On the balance, I am not sure we'd even pay more for products after, say a 10-20 year transition time. Your economic argument is specious and unfounded (show some data from a peer-reviewed source, for example) ... and ethically and morally, your argument just plain fails to have any traction.

Please stop assuming you are "more evolved" ... all you are doing is revealing your arrogance and ignorance ... and that is NOT evolved at all.

I never said alternatives did not exist to animal biproducts in some cases. HOWERVER, realize and acknowlege that its a cost issue to the "owners of capital", if they see something is cheaper they MAY use it, if they see it is more efficient MAY will use it. Don't blame me because companies are CHOOSING to use animal biproducts for industrial purposes in manufacturing and biotech. The reality is the consumer has no choice in how ANYTHING is made, but they can on an individual level choose to consume the devices and medicine made by the animal biproducts or not. THAT WAS MY POINT.

I don't see how consumer influence can change such anyway, outside of anything except possibly consumer food production and/or authoritarian government intervention to remove animal biproducts from industrial purposes. I'm not knocking your education background or training within the context of your argument, so don't knock mine. I'm simply reporting "findings", but you're foolishly assuming the people in charge are reasonable enough to accept your "alternative measures" for production using thier money. It doesn't work that way, never has and never will. You may be able to design or point out alternatives to animal biproducts for industrial uses, due to your education, but at the end of the day the "owners of capital" choose whether they want to use it or not. I think it pretty clear you don't understand how your role is percieved by those who write the checks to keep the roof over your head.

Please not, I'm not on thier side, but frankly you sound silly and naive

As a vegan who sometimes strays into vegetarianism but never has the desire to eat meat despite the fact that I admit I always liked the taste of meat, it is my feeling that many vegans and vegetarians start eating meat again because of the enormous public pressure to do so. Articles like this only serve to further the pressure on those of us that care for the suffering of animals, the future of the planet and the health of our bodies. People who eat correctly will NOT become anemic on a vegan diet. Many Olympic atheletes are vegan.

The woman who is eating raw meat is certainly not eating a healthy diet. Something tells me her vegetarian diet wasn't much smarter. While most medical experts agree that a healthy vegan diet is the best, our society (and most ill-informed doctors) continue to push meat and dairy as the solutions to all our problems. The medical facts do not support the myth that meat and dairy are good for you as promoted by Madison Avenue on behalf of the factory farming industry. We are genetically predisposed to digest protein directly from plant material. That is why we get sick from cholestorol while true carnivores do not. Yes, sometimes sticking to a vegan or vegetarian diet can be tough when the majority around you are telling you that you are wrong or that you are missing something great - especially when you are young and vulnerable to suggestion or feeling deprived because of media advertisements. But fruits and vegetables, and whole grains (what they tell us we're supposed to be eating folks!) are not bad! There's a lot to eat out there that doesn't come from a living animal - delicous stuff.

If you're going to eat meat at least be honest about why you're doing it. Don't spout all this crap about blood types and genes and people having a need for meat. That's bull. If you're worried that not eating meat is going to mess up your social life than you've got more serious problems. There's something for you to eat in every restaurant and if you think you're never going to be asked over for dinner again then you probably were a lousy dinner guest to begin with.

Finally someone racional, thanks for your comment, you are totally right. People do things wrong and then they blame the vegeterian/vegan diet, and it honestly frustrates me.
Someone who does it for a strong conviction and concern for the living creatures and our planet, to stop the immense cruelty that most people support by their indifference, would never quit veganism. Someone who embraces veganism would never stop taking care of their health.
I will never stop.

I assure you that I do not have an agenda when it comes to this issue. I study human-animal interactions - period. And the human-meat relationship is particularly complex, interesting and important.

I agree with you that the blood type theory is nutty - no evidence. There is however, good evidence that individual differences in the desire to eat meat are influenced by both genes and culture (see the references in my book).

However, like it or not, it does seem the be the case that most vegetarians eventually go back to eating meat. This is not simply my opinion. But we need more research on this issue to establish better data on recidivism of vegetarians.
Hal

Most ex-smokers go back to nicotine. Most former drug users go back to addiction. Most alcoholics who quit go back to booze. Most former religious practitioners go back to their cults. Most married cheaters who get caught go back to polygamy. Most formerly unemployed workers go back to getting fired again. Most previously fat folks go back to engorging themselves.

Show me a shred of scientifically verifiable evidence that 1) including animals in ones diet is healthier than a reasonably planned exclusively plant based diet, and 2) evidence that, for a population, reverting from a plant based diet to a diet that includes animal flesh produces a net positive result for the group.

Include in your research people who are vegan from birth. Find vegans who have not been exposed to very much of the incessant flow of Western diet propaganda. See if those vegans are more likely to stay on their intrinsically healthier diet.

Commercial media editorial content must necessarily promote the corporate values of advertisers. Much of the food promoted in ads of for-profit publication is chemical laden machine churned product that oozes animal fat and excess salt, substances that are at least psychologically addictive (seen any cheese ads lately?).

The fact that some vegetarians and vegans in our society get sucked back into the less healthy flesh inclusive diet cannot be that surprising. Attempting to make that look like a healthier choice is corporate media wasteland nonsense.

Telling readers what they want to hear makes the work of selling ad space easier and more lucrative.

Good points ... this is not, at all, a scientific study (the biased sample used makes that impossible; albeit interesting). The questions you raise though, should be asked for an economic argument is necessary to perhaps shift the present paradigm (so long as we can place value on intangibles, such as, aspects of the environment) ... and if the economic argument is not valid (and in some cases, it may not yet be), then some soul-searching might need to be done ... even if the ethical argument is sound.

Study the relationship between length of time one is a practitioner of veganism and recidivism. What constitutes being vegetarian or vegan, time wise? And what about going back and forth several times? Just like a smoker, it could take several attempts to break the addiction to what many long term vegans consider to be genocidal cannibalism.

"If you're going to eat meat at least be honest about why you're doing it. Don't spout all this crap about blood types and genes and people having a need for meat. That's bull."

I say the same thing about veganism - if you're going to be an "out and proud" vegan, and you are doing it for ethical and/or environmental reasons, say so. To me those are respectable motives. I don't happen to share them, but I respect that you feel the way you do, and the choices you make to accommodate your feelings.

DO NOT, however, try to justify your veganism by saying it's a healthier diet, thereby trying to claim my diet is not.

The big studies that have attempted to prove veganism is healthier have all failed miserably, and be repeatedly refuted by equally knowledgeable scientists and health experts, as well as very clever lay persons with an intense interest in health.

Those studies were all conducted using the Standard American Diet, or SAD, as contrast. It doesn't take a scientist of any kind to realize that any even moderately restrictive diet is going to beat the hell out of the SAD when it comes to health.

What has never been proven, is that a vegan diet is healthier than an equally clean diet that includes animal protein in which-

1. Animals are raised in a healthy environment which supports what their bodies demand for health, without overcrowding or unnecessary physical restriction,

2. Are fed a diet appropriate for that animal - i.e. - chickens allowed out to pasture and free range to eat the omnivorous diet they were meant to eat, and eggs laid and collected naturally; and pigs free to pasture and eat the omnivorous diets appropriate for them; and cows allowed to grass-feed up until slaughter.

3. Raised free of antibiotics and hormones

4. Allowed enough time outdoors so that their body fat composition is the natural, healthy omega 3 fatty acid composition, high in vitamin D, that it was meant to be, instead of the high Omega 6 fatty acid composition that causes such illness and inflammation.

You can look all you like, and you will not find a study like this. Until one is done, "science" has proved nothing.

Nobody here is disputing the fact that factory farms and feedlot meats are an abomination, and should be shut down as quickly as possible. The way to do this, however, is not to STOP eating meat, but to instead support your local farmers who care very deeply for each and every animal they raise. These are family farms, and they are feeding their own children the same eggs, meats, and milk that they sell you. THEY CARE.

Many meat eaters are every bit as obsessed with the quality of food that we eat and feed our families, going to great lengths to procure pastured and grass-fed meats, and free-range eggs, and eating only organic vegetables. The quality of our food is our highest priority, and we eliminate all processed foods and sugars.

In the end science will prove not that meat was dangerous or even less healthy. Processed foods are the culprit.

Hal, thanks for a wonderful article. At first I read your headline as saying that most vegetarians go back to eating meat, which is not true (though the rate of recidivism is unknown). There are some indications that about 15-25% of people are ex-vegetarians, though this number comes from the United Kingdom.

The Humane Research Council has in-depth research on this topic. Readers might be interested in our primers on How Many Vegetarians Are There and Why Vegetarian/Vegan: http://www.humanespot.org/node/2685

Hi Che -- funny you should mention the HRC report on "How Many Vegetarians Are There" as I just (re)read it this morning along with the excellent HRC report "Why or Why Not Vegetarian."

My estimate that 75% of vegetarians go back to eating meating was based on the national 2005 CBS poll in which 2% of adults surveyed said they were current vegetarians versus who 6% said they were once vegetarians but no longer are. This suggests a 3:1 lapsed/current ratio.

Interestingly, just this afternoon, I talked to a woman who has been a vegetarian for six months. For the first time in her life she is experiencing cravings for steak! She said it was driving her crazy and did not even like beef before.

I would love to have a better measure of the recidivism rate...maybe this could be something the HRC could take on at some point!

And I would encourage readers interest in animal issues to check out the excellent research of the Humane Research Council. Their web site ishttp://www.humaneresearch.org/